Thorny

I don't have much of an issue with the Butcher signing, but I do take your point, here - basically, it's why I always talk about "results". All of these decisions bleed into each other just like one aspect of on-ice play bleeds into others. Maybe the Butcher signing isn't important/relevant in isolation, but none of these roster decisions exist in a vacuum. If cost at all factored into the goaltending situation, or other areas of the roster, in terms of the players we were able to bring in, the $ committed to bad players is certainly fair game for discussion, at least, I'd say.

Right, regardless of my statement that I'd rather have Reinhart, what I think of the deal itself is immaterial to my point, here, in this case: Adams made a *choice* with Reinhart, a decision, an can be evaluated on the results of it in good faith. That's the key: in good faith. Trying to paint a picture of a man who was helpless within the situation who had no choice but to move Sam, who is therefore NOT culpable for the results is completely bogus. And it grinds my gears. It grinds them! It's the same thing with the goalies, going on. There are those that want to frame this all by pointing out all the good Adams has done, while claiming anything bad that resulted was beyond his control to make better. Nuh uh.

Can't argue with anything here. *****.

I'd rather have Reinhart still. That's not snark, either. We could have Reinhart instead. What do they always say, you don't draft for need because you don't know what the roster is going to look like when the players arrive? Goalie prospects are even further away. Acquiring Levi doesn't fix the goaltending because we need a fix in goaltending long before Levi gets here, if he ever does. There is every chance Adams isn't even the GM when Levi is an NHLer. And that's not a comment on the aptitude of Adams - it's a recognition of the average lifespan of a GM and the dev path of goalies.

Thank you for saying the bolded. As for the last sentence, reasonable - but when are the results the results? Adams has committed two bad teams to the ice. No, he doesn't get a pass for last year because he knew the players he chose to sign would be bad (seriously?? lol). Is it next year? Or is it 3 free pass years. I can't imagine any good plan requires 2 years where we intentionally aren't good, and that doesn't include Adams first year where he was working on a different plan, supposedly. Does the team need to win a lot more next year - does next season count as "results"?

Also we need to stop alleviating blame for Adams for Reinhart. Why do we need to gloss over the negatives just because Adams has shown some positives? He didn't HAVE to trade Reinhart. By his OWN ADMISSION Reinhart was open to signing LT when Adams came aboard. Adams COULD have signed him. He chose not to.

It's been TWO seasons. It's a large enough timeframe where a reasonable addition can be expected, if management is actually aiming for such. There has been plenty of movement. It's the exact same as the Botterill 2C situation. Also the "Adams knew it would fail" thing is really quite weird. He knew it would fail because he brought in players like Staal who weren't good? That's why he signed them to short term deals? Because he knew his additions wouldn't get it done? What? lol

I agree with much of this, but you lost me at "Mike Harrington". - - - Agree with what I feel is your key point: that within the context of the plan, Adams seems to be managing reasonably well. Whether the plan itself is good, is what's up for debate, and a bit more of an interesting discussion, until a larger sample size of results presents itself. I'd add, re: your point about "losing culture", that for me it's less about the players psyches being damaged by that, and more about training the players to get into a mode where "not winning" is ok. Which is indeed the hypothetical being presented, right? That they are being told, "don't worry, expectations are low this year"? That's a slippery slope when it comes to instilling a mindset, and culture. And even if the players are ok with results not mattering now, how long does that last for? To me, as I've mentioned before, one "down" year like this within the context of the plan seems to make sense*. A second year like this next year...does anyone think that would be ok? Work out ok? Do people expect more for next year or is it going to be "this season was never about winning anyways" after a month, again? *To an extent - we know Adams wanted better for in net. Which brings me to my only other disagreement - the breakdown above seeking to, in step by step fashion, alleviate the blame from Adams for the goaltending situation is incorrect, full stop. It can be argued that it was better to not have good goaltending (not that I would) because the aim is a high pick, but if the goal was to have better GT, just because Adams "tried" doesn't make the results of the position acceptable. His job is to fill positions competently, not "try" to do so. The bar, to be better than what we have, is so, so low. Just because a few specific examples are given of specific goalies who were acquired for a price arguably too high for us, doesn't come close to proving there weren't plenty of options available to upgrade the goaltending. Without knowing all of the options, the position needs to be judged on results - it's the most fair.

That's really interesting, I wonder why that is.. But yes some really fun conversations (I guess I'm a nerd) have come from working through the problem with people and mapping it out. The realization moment is always cool.

They aren't improved. They've just shifted around where the negatives are. They might be improved organizationally, maybe Adams plan is good, and the drafting as far as early returns looks pretty good. But we aren't any better on ice. Peep Granato's coaching points % record vs Krueger's for a fun time. The "improvement" we saw comes down to a combination of revisionist history where we all pretend the Sabres haven't had several good stretches in the last decade that fizzled to nothing, and because of the fact that people need to start accepting the Sabres try harder, as of late, early in the season than other teams do. And at the end of the season once out of it. It's always been easier to win in garbage time. The Sabres are in a habit of talking up the "new culture" every offseason, and have been for a while if one takes the time to look back at the messaging in years previous to this one, that people considered a breath of fresh air. They come out on fire with something to prove every season, when other teams are still getting in the rhythm of lacing up their skates for the new season. The fast starts don't mean anything. Until they do. But they haven't yet, and it didn't mean squat this year, it just didn't. I truly don't think we've seen the effort start to suffer. I think the effort is eventually made to look inadequate when the talented teams actually try. Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard. The part of that equation that people leave out is that: when talent *does* work hard, the non-talent team is made to look like it's not working.

Definitely too soon. Oh, unless he's a Sabre for life. Then he's absolutely injury prone - as are all players who play here, who are at the mercy of our crack medical staff. Kidding.

The Isles have to eventually pick it up, no?

I am too. First time I've been numb to it that I can remember in my life. It's sad, to be sure, but a bit relieving, if I am honest: I find myself as much a Sabres fan as ever, even after "letting go" of this season. Underneath the angst of how bad they are, I was relieved to see my heart still loves the team (not that I doubted, really). They aren't just a habit for me, I always want to be a fan. I'm sure if they are ever good again, we'll be able to put the emotion right back where it belongs.

Honestly I think the vid from SDS covered it lol I am SHOCKED I am not

The feeling is addictive when the person is in a spot where they aren't "feeling" much, otherwise.

At least you'll understand and appreciate, then, that when the game show host reveals an empty door, you CHANGE YOUR ANSWER

Because it's not really about winning, it's about feeling.

Seems about right. We have the ability to improve the output of our goaltending and D somewhat, but it comes with a sacrifice of that "average" offense. We only have the talent accumulation to be passable in one area, I think, scoring or preventing, and the goalies are so bad they'll catch up to us regardless.

He was indeed good in that tourney overall - 9 points in 7 games his draft year, 12 in 7 the year after we drafted him

a well-timed reach around yesterday, had he been in asplund's spot on the goal, would have served us well

Fool me once, shame on.......shame on..you..?.... point is, can't get fooled again

If I just could have made that pass.... things would have been different for me.

Forbes just looked up their place in the standings this year (p%) and called it day. Lazy.

Maybe at first. But he stood there in one spot so long in a fluid game that Milano made a sandwich and caught up on squid game

If it comes to that, I won't back down.